Fundy Trying To Pass Off Proof Of God

[Jeydid]

And as a matter of fact, I think it takes more faith to be an Atheist than it does to believe in the existence of a god or gods.

 

 

 

 

Is this guy serious??

[mwc]

http://www.rumdesign.com/wrong/ here is a nice one for you, if you dare to type out the URL

Ahhh...now why'd you want to go and frighten my cat?

 

mwc

[Asuryan]

OK, Lunar Shadow. I may believe in God or may not. That is irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

Usually, when newcomers in this forum start with such a sentence, it means (and it is discovered some posts later) that they are, indeed, christians, and they wrote that first post omitting their religion, trying to add some weight to their words. Something like "if I won't say out right I'm a christian, maybe the exchristians will treat me better and listen to me." ...so that means, being shamed of one's own religion, or trying to deceive people. Which one?

 

 

 

Do you really think it is cool to be intolerant of people who believe in God if they tolerate you?

 

 

 

I don't want to be tolerated.

 

I want to be accepted.

 

I don't want to see some christian smile at me and act all friendly and kind, when I know perfectly well that he's thinking "Oh well, she's going to hell soon, and burn forever because even if she's a good person she's not a christian. Tough luck, I'll be happyyyy and dancing with jeeeesus while she roasts!", how can he worship such a god and FEEL in his heart that it is right for that god to torture me atrociously for eternity?

 

Christians don't really get this concept, it is not being tortured for a year or a month or a lifetime, it is E T E R N I T Y. How can someone think that it is right for a human being to suffer so much for ETERNITY, and still claim to be good, humane, and caring? Only a monster could watch a friend in the face, picture him or her burning forever, thrashing on the firey ground in the most atrocious torments, and just say "Oh well I'll be tolerant, I'll shut up, I'll see her in hell while I'll sing with angels, praise god the merciful".

 

I want to be accepted. I want that people look at me and see a human being, with a right to live, love, and not be tortured forever. Telling "oh well you're a sinner you'll burn forever" is not accepting someone.

 

and have a nice day, intolerant bigots

 

 

 

Is it oxymoron day?

[dibby]

Hello people.

 

The evangelical starting point is irrational. The assumption is made that the bible is the absolute opinions and words of god....which it cleartly is not. It was written by human beings with their own political and religious agenda (and to be fair also from their experience of life). Anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge of how the bible was put together can clearly see it is the product of human beings.

 

Sye, you are right. When viewed literally as god's opinions it puts you in conflict with every other religion who also have their holy books which are apparently god's opinions. This is a dangerous situation....especially in places like the middle east, and it is possible that god's self appointed spokespersons could take us to the edge of third world war. Enough of this madness! Repent of this lunacy!

 

Your appeal to logic and rationality is preceded by a highly illogical and irrational starting point.

[Guest milphog6]

good point above! i have never come across anyone who can tell me who gave the various councils who pieced together the bible we know THEIR authority. i always get the whole "god inspired the bible" tripe, but they can't answer who gave the authority to put the books they have into it. i'll help anyone who doesn't know the answer to that. THERE IS NO ANSWER! nowhere in the bible does it say what books should be in it. also, i'm faily new to this site, but i love how many idiots come in here treating us like the average atheist who found it trendy to claim the title. do they not read the name of the site EXCHRISTIAN, you think that they would understand that we've used so many of their stupid arguments and that's why we don't believe them anymore, we've seen the giant holes in them.

[Canuckfish]

First of all thanks for showing up. I'm glad you did since debating on email is horrible and my email sux.

 

My pleasure. Just to be sure, to those who think I am 'ramming' my religion down your collective throats, I was invited to participate in this forum.

 

The line between murder and killing is small. God kills people all the time. If when god kills it is not wrong, but when we kill it is immoral then morality is not absolute because it is right sometimes and wrong others

 

Killing is not absolutely morally wrong. Murder is. The best translation of that command is "Thou shalt not murder."

 

 

Don't try to put me on guilt trips by saying I need to repent of my sins. There is no sin except for the one that the person believe is so.

 

Yes, this is consistent with your beliefs. If there is no God, no one is under any obigation to behave in any particular way. This is why people choose to be atheists. Now before anyone gets their shorts in a knot, I am NOT saying that atheists are immoral, all I am saying, as this last quote testifies, is that atheists have NO REASON to be moral, since morality is subjective to them.

 

Cheers,

 

Sye

 

P.S. My other forums have slowed down a bit so I will try to post here more regularly.

[nick5]

Killing is not absolutely morally wrong. Murder is. The best translation of that command is "Thou shalt not murder."

 

Except yaweh himself does that a lot. And I do mean murder. As in mass murder.

[Canuckfish]

Then for your sake you had better hope that you never, ever, ever ate a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich; wore a polyester and cotton shirt; or planted carrots and lettuce in the same garden patch. Because those are all violations of "da law."

 

Alright, it is actually non-sensical to do a Biblical exegesis here, as atheists will interpret the Bible with the presuppsotion that it is NOT the infallible word of God, and Christians will interpret the Bible with the presupposition that it IS. So in the future it is unlikely that I will respond to Biblical criticism, but rather focus on who's presuppositions can account for the reason we use to criticize anything.

 

With that said, I will address the above point. The Bible speaks of 3 different types of law, cultural, ceremonial, and moral. The cultural and ceremonial laws applied to the cultures and ceremonies of the Old Testament. Some of those laws were fulfilled in Christ. For instance, we no longer have to bring sacrifices to the alter, as Christ has been the ultimate sacrifice. The moral laws still apply.

 

Blasphemy" is a matter of religious opinion, not desperation.

 

You know what I as a Christian would consider to be blasphemous. Taking the Lord's name in vain will ensure I do not respond to a post. Some people on other forums have known my stipulation and add a blasphemy to their post, no doubt, so I will not respond to their weak points.

 

And you won't last long here if you tell *us* to repent and then run away when we respond with justifiable outrage at your hubris.

 

That message was sent in a private email which the respondent chose to post here. I will argue logically with those who engage me. (You al lknow you need to repent anyway )

 

 

^^ The problem is they will and always do.... I finished up my debate with one of them already because Mr. logic and science (Canuckfish) has out right said that evolution is niether observable or possible it is some cult of darwin some big conspiracy to bring down god.

 

 

so much for logic and science

 

 

Well lets set the record straight. This was your quote at that other forum:

 

You know what.... if you are gonna fail to educate yourself on such matters as simple as evolution which is an observable science accepted as scientific fact even by christians and catholics then we are done here. My time is much to valuable to me than to waste it your cultish beliefs and twisted pitiful excuse for logic.

 

And this was my response:

 

I'll save you some time. Just post one evolutionary fact that science has observed.

 

(By the way, if in fact you know anything about the evolutionary theory, you have gotten it from faith in a book, or in evolutionary scientists. I'll give you a 'small' list of scientists who disagree: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...os/default.asp )

 

 

All I asked for was one evolutionary fact that science has observed (macro, not micro to clarify), and you up and ran. Just one evolutionary fact that science has observed. You can post it here now.

 

Cheers,

 

Sye

 

 

Hello people.

 

Hey

 

The evangelical starting point is irrational. The assumption is made that the bible is the absolute opinions and words of god....which it cleartly is not.

This is an unsupportable presupposition. Prove this please.

 

Your appeal to logic and rationality is preceded by a highly illogical and irrational starting point.

 

My starting point allows me to account for reason, and the validity of my human reason as they are gifts from God.

Let's see how your starting point accounts for reason, and for the validity of your human reason.

If you will.

 

 

 

i have never come across anyone who can tell me who gave the various councils who pieced together the bible we know THEIR authority.

 

You take a fallacious starting point when you assume that the council of Nicea determined which books would be included in the Bible. Rather they, discovered which books were the true Word of God, and therefore which should be left out.

 

I believe that God was ultimately responsible for which books are in the Bible. Sure the individuals in the council were fallible, but surely God can strike a straight blow with a crooked stick.

 

 

Again, these points are useless to argue as they will be interpreted subject to our presuppositions. Lets focus on who's presuppositions give us the preconditions for intelligibility.

[Astreja]

You know what I as a Christian would consider to be blasphemous. Taking the Lord's name in vain will ensure I do not respond to a post.

I know what some Christians think of as blasphemy. I can't say that I know the exact combination that you find unacceptable.

Some people on other forums have known my stipulation and add a blasphemy to their post, no doubt, so I will not respond to their weak points.

Seriously? You actually think they're doing it on purpose to dodge an argument? Does not compute.

You all know you need to repent anyway

Actually, no, I personally don't "know" any such thing. I was a nominal Christian (baptized as an infant) and never did find any measure of genuine Christian belief. The story made no sense to me from the start, and the more I learned of the history and theology the more I detested it.

[Canuckfish]

Killing is not absolutely morally wrong. Murder is. The best translation of that command is "Thou shalt not murder."

 

Except yaweh himself does that a lot. And I do mean murder. As in mass murder.

 

 

I should also clarify, I will also not respond to people with blatently blasphemous signatures. I am of course not implying that you can't post them here, as that is none of my business, only that if you have one, I won't answer.

 

 

 

I was a nominal Christian (baptized as an infant) and never did find any measure of genuine Christian belief. The story made no sense to me from the start, and the more I learned of the history and theology the more I detested it.

 

 

Detesting something does not make it untrue. Many people detest Christianity as they love their autonomy too much.

[Guest milphog6]

nice try round eye...

 

"You take a fallacious starting point when you assume that the council of Nicea determined which books would be included in the Bible. Rather they, discovered which books were the true Word of God, and therefore which should be left out.

 

I believe that God was ultimately responsible for which books are in the Bible. Sure the individuals in the council were fallible, but surely God can strike a straight blow with a crooked stick.

 

 

Again, these points are useless to argue as they will be interpreted subject to our presuppositions. Lets focus on who's presuppositions give us the preconditions for intelligibility."

 

ok, i will give you discovered as opposed to determined...what can i say? i'm generous. so moving on. where did you learn that god was ultimately responsible for which books are in the bible. where are you getting your information? which book in the bible says what books of the bible go in it? how did the council "discover" which books were the "true" word of god?

 

 

by the way the round eye comment came from a video game, not trying to insult or anything, it's just a funny saying. anyways, i'm not real familiar with all your rules to have a conversation so please give me a little leniancy as i'm interested in your beliefs.

[Lunar Shadow]

 

 

^^ The problem is they will and always do.... I finished up my debate with one of them already because Mr. logic and science (Canuckfish) has out right said that evolution is niether observable or possible it is some cult of darwin some big conspiracy to bring down god.

 

 

so much for logic and science

 

 

Well lets set the record straight. This was your quote at that other forum:

 

You know what.... if you are gonna fail to educate yourself on such matters as simple as evolution which is an observable science accepted as scientific fact even by christians and catholics then we are done here. My time is much to valuable to me than to waste it your cultish beliefs and twisted pitiful excuse for logic.

 

And this was my response:

 

I'll save you some time. Just post one evolutionary fact that science has observed.

 

(By the way, if in fact you know anything about the evolutionary theory, you have gotten it from faith in a book, or in evolutionary scientists. I'll give you a 'small' list of scientists who disagree: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...os/default.asp )

 

 

All I asked for was one evolutionary fact that science has observed (macro, not micro to clarify), and you up and ran. Just one evolutionary fact that science has observed. You can post it here now.

 

 

Come on even you buddy Dr. Dino had to acknowledge Evolution to some degree. So the Christian camp came up with a term to explain the variances and EVOLUTION we see in species they refer to it as microevolution... but that is splitting hairs because you can only observe micro changes in the life time of a human. But it is Evolution all the same

Micro-evolution includes small subspecies level of change in organisms. These changes do not prevent interbreeding with the form of organism without the change so they are not clearly a new species but rather a new variety of the same species. There is a great variety of microevolution observed all around us. Microevolution is a fact

Source

Mind you I took this from a site that seems to take issue with Evolution. It seems to have doubt in "macroevolution".

 

 

It is a case of splitting hairs the term microevolution is something that Christians love to use based on the sheer fact that it still put up an arbitrary barrier between itself and Evolution. But if evolution is untrue why would you have to make that distinction in the first place? If evolution is untrue why would a distinction need to be made? Do tell me I would love to see you apologetic response to this.

 

 

 

If you actually want to learn about Evolution I suggest Dr. Zach Moore's Series Evolution 101 you can find it HERE

[mwc]

The moral laws still apply.

Define these please.

 

mwc

[Kuroikaze]

 

Alright, it is actually non-sensical to do a Biblical exegesis here, as atheists will interpret the Bible with the presuppsotion that it is NOT the infallible word of God, and Christians will interpret the Bible with the presupposition that it IS. So in the future it is unlikely that I will respond to Biblical criticism, but rather focus on who's presuppositions can account for the reason we use to criticize anything.

 

With that said, I will address the above point. The Bible speaks of 3 different types of law, cultural, ceremonial, and moral. The cultural and ceremonial laws applied to the cultures and ceremonies of the Old Testament. Some of those laws were fulfilled in Christ. For instance, we no longer have to bring sacrifices to the alter, as Christ has been the ultimate sacrifice. The moral laws still apply.

 

 

 

The only problem is that you are not engaging in exegesis here at all, but eisegesis. I've read many books on theology, so I've heard this 3 different types of law argument before. In fact as a christian i argued for it, and thought it was a sensible way to justify many biblical problems.

 

The problem that made me reject this position (and eventually Christianity all together?) Can you provide ONE scripture that bears out this distinction? Is there ANY passage in the entire bible where anyone even alludes to such a distinction in Mosaic law? I've never seen one, and I've read the entire bible several times.

 

I've read many theology books talk about this distinction, but I've never once seen a theologin provide a proof text from scriptures to back up the claim.

[Canuckfish]

 

ok, i will give you discovered as opposed to determined...what can i say? i'm generous. so moving on. where did you learn that god was ultimately responsible for which books are in the bible.

where are you getting your information? which book in the bible says what books of the bible go in it? how did the council "discover" which books were the "true" word of god?

 

2 Timothy 3:16 says:

 

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"

 

What you must understand is that ANY claim to 'ultimate authority' MUST be self authorizing. The Bible claims to be the word of God as can be seen in that passage from Timothy, and supports that claim in the books that were included in the New Testament. Surely the fact that Jesus authorized the Old Testament scriptures is good enough for me

The council of Nicea did not 'authorize' the scriptures, they discovered which were 'God breathed' by their own (the scripture's) authority.

 

Now before you protest to my claim that 'ANY claim to ultimate authority,' must be self authorizing, consider your own ultimate authority. I imagine that if it is not God, then it is your own human reason, tell me what tells you that your human reason is valid?

 

You see, if Christians used anything else to give authority to the Bible, then whatever they used, be it archeology,Bible professors, or councils of Nicea , then THAT would be their ultimate authority and not the Bible.

 

by the way the round eye comment came from a video game, not trying to insult or anything, it's just a funny saying. anyways, i'm not real familiar with all your rules to have a conversation so please give me a little leniancy as i'm interested in your beliefs.

 

Hey, I'm not a prude. I like to have fun just like the next guy. I don't mind, (actually like) joking around, I draw the line at blatant attempts to offend God.

 

Cheers

[Asimov]

2 Timothy 3:16 says:

 

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"

 

What you must understand is that ANY claim to 'ultimate authority' MUST be self authorizing. The Bible claims to be the word of God as can be seen in that passage from Timothy, and supports that claim in the books that were included in the New Testament. Surely the fact that Jesus authorized the Old Testament scriptures is good enough for me

The council of Nicea did not 'authorize' the scriptures, they discovered which were 'God breathed' by their own (the scripture's) authority.

 

Now before you protest to my claim that 'ANY claim to ultimate authority,' must be self authorizing, consider your own ultimate authority. I imagine that if it is not God, then it is your own human reason, tell me what tells you that your human reason is valid?

 

You see, if Christians used anything else to give authority to the Bible, then whatever they used, be it archeology,Bible professors, or councils of Nicea , then THAT would be their ultimate authority and not the Bible.

 

So...

 

1. Any claims to ultimate authority must be self-authorizing.

2. The bible claims ultimate authority.

3. Therefore the bible is the ultimate authority

 

Is this your logic?

[Canuckfish]

It is a case of splitting hairs the term microevolution is something that Christians love to use based on the sheer fact that it still put up an arbitrary barrier between itself and Evolution. But if evolution is untrue why would you have to make that distinction in the first place? If evolution is untrue why would a distinction need to be made?

 

 

Because one claims an increase in genetic information, the other does not. You still have not shown me even ONE observed instance of evolution where genetic information is increased.

 

Please do, I have asked politely. I won't ask again.

[Asimov]

It is a case of splitting hairs the term microevolution is something that Christians love to use based on the sheer fact that it still put up an arbitrary barrier between itself and Evolution. But if evolution is untrue why would you have to make that distinction in the first place? If evolution is untrue why would a distinction need to be made?

 

 

Because one claims an increase in genetic information, the other does not. You still have not shown me even ONE observed instance of evolution where genetic information is increased.

 

Please do, I have asked politely. I won't ask again.

 

All mutations are increases in information.

[Canuckfish]

The only problem is that you are not engaging in exegesis here at all, but eisegesis. I've read many books on theology, so I've heard this 3 different types of law argument before. In fact as a christian i argued for it, and thought it was a sensible way to justify many biblical problems.

 

The problem that made me reject this position (and eventually Christianity all together?) Can you provide ONE scripture that bears out this distinction? Is there ANY passage in the entire bible where anyone even alludes to such a distinction in Mosaic law? I've never seen one, and I've read the entire bible several times.

 

I've read many theology books talk about this distinction, but I've never once seen a theologin provide a proof text from scriptures to back up the claim.

 

A law such as 'building a railing around the roof of your house' applied in those days for those people because they used the roofs of their houses as living space. To say "I reject Christianity because the Bible does not indicate that that law was only meant for those people," does not seem logical.

 

You make a good point, but why not abide by ALL the Old Testament laws then, rather than abandon Christianity? It seems more likely that you were looking for a reason to become autonomous, and found one.

 

What it comes down to is a matter of ultimate authority. If you rejected Christianity based on the authority of your reasoning, then IT and not God was always your ultimate authority.

 

My point, and the entire point of the website, is to show that reasoning is impossible without God. Sure there are perceived difficulties in the Bible, but without it being the inspired, infallible Word of God, we lose all justification for human reason itself.

 

According to the Christian worldview, our very ability to reason is a gift from God, surely He would expect us to use it prayerfully in trying to understand His word. The cultural, ceremonial, and moral law explantion makes sense to me, if i am wrong then I will have to answer for my error. Thankfully when I meet my maker I will be covered by the righteousness of Christ.

 

Blessings,

 

Sye

[Kuroikaze]

It is a case of splitting hairs the term microevolution is something that Christians love to use based on the sheer fact that it still put up an arbitrary barrier between itself and Evolution. But if evolution is untrue why would you have to make that distinction in the first place? If evolution is untrue why would a distinction need to be made?

 

 

Because one claims an increase in genetic information, the other does not. You still have not shown me even ONE observed instance of evolution where genetic information is increased.

 

Please do, I have asked politely. I won't ask again.

 

 

This distinction is made up. "macro" evolution does not have to increase information. It could be less information as long as the being is better able to survive in a given environment.

 

Lunar is right on the money here, the macro/micro distinction is made up....just ask your self the question. When do the changes stop? Is there some magic limit where a species suddenly says I've changed as much as I can and now I have to stop? Do you see how silly that sounds? If something can change a little bit over 100 years what proof do you have that it couldn't change drastically in 1 million years? Indeed, if the changes conintue it is natural to think that you WOULD get something very different.

 

You have no proof for your postion either it seems.

[Canuckfish]

 

So...

 

1. Any claims to ultimate authority must be self-authorizing.

2. The bible claims ultimate authority.

3. Therefore the bible is the ultimate authority

 

Is this your logic?

 

 

Not quite, but close. The Bible authorizes itself in many ways, not only by the claim of authority. For instance it calls the reasoning of those who reject it 'foolishness.' When I hear people try to account for universal, abstract, invariant laws, outside of God, it authenticates the Bible by the foolishness that is spouted. Just keep an eye on this thread if you are not convinced. In fact I see a post below which might help.

 

(I'll point it out to you)

 

This one

 

 

 

All mutations are increases in information.

[Lunar Shadow]

It is a case of splitting hairs the term microevolution is something that Christians love to use based on the sheer fact that it still put up an arbitrary barrier between itself and Evolution. But if evolution is untrue why would you have to make that distinction in the first place? If evolution is untrue why would a distinction need to be made?

 

 

Because one claims an increase in genetic information, the other does not. You still have not shown me even ONE observed instance of evolution where genetic information is increased.

 

Please do, I have asked politely. I won't ask again.

 

I know this seems like a dumb question oh wise one but what happens when you get a bunch of microevolution events spread out over time?? a big change? wouldn't that be considered macroevolution? Or am I just crazy? Because from what I read in your post you do not deny that microevolution exists.

 

What the hell do you want Sye? Do you want me to bring over my pet monkey, that was once my dog and before that my pet turtle? what?

 

 

Wait a minute.....

 

I have 2 words for you Sye

 

The FLU

 

The strain evolves (Yes there are different strains). The latest scare (in memory) is the bird flu they fear a mutation (evolution) so it will become airborne and easily transferred person to person. Mutations no matter how small are evolution. The mutation (if it is better fit to survive) will carry on until a new mutation that is more suitable for survival. And we call this magic science maybe you should check it out it is rather interesting...Not only that it is based in reality. Any Questions?

[Canuckfish]

If something can change a little bit over 100 years what proof do you have that it couldn't change drastically in 1 million years?

 

Um, what proof do you have that it does? What proof do you have that one species became another?

What proof do you have of ANY mutation that INCREASED genetic information? Surely you believe that a human has more genetic infromation than pre-biotic slime?

 

You have no proof for your postion either it seems.

 

Admitting that you have no proof for your theory hardly backs up your theory.

 

For the record, I am not here to argue evolution (I only responded to a post regarding it). It is my contention that outside of God one cannot make sense out of the human reasoning you use even to posit evolution. If you would like to posit a source for the universal, abstract, invariant laws outside of God, feel free, and I will engage you.

 

Cheers

[Kuroikaze]

The only problem is that you are not engaging in exegesis here at all, but eisegesis. I've read many books on theology, so I've heard this 3 different types of law argument before. In fact as a christian i argued for it, and thought it was a sensible way to justify many biblical problems.

 

The problem that made me reject this position (and eventually Christianity all together?) Can you provide ONE scripture that bears out this distinction? Is there ANY passage in the entire bible where anyone even alludes to such a distinction in Mosaic law? I've never seen one, and I've read the entire bible several times.

 

I've read many theology books talk about this distinction, but I've never once seen a theologin provide a proof text from scriptures to back up the claim.

 

A law such as 'building a railing around the roof of your house' applied in those days for those people because they used the roofs of their houses as living space. To say "I reject Christianity because the Bible does not indicate that that law was only meant for those people," does not seem logical.

 

You make a good point, but why not abide by ALL the Old Testament laws then, rather than abandon Christianity? It seems more likely that you were looking for a reason to become autonomous, and found one.

 

You might not realize but what you said here is unbelievable rude....you have no idea how much I suffered, or how I agonized over my decision. So please don't act like you have any idea who I am or why I made the choices I did....

 

believe me, I DID consider what you are saying...but what you are asking is imposible....as well as horiffic. Should I stone my child because he is unrully? Kill witches? It would be imposible in this day and age to obey ALL of the old testiment laws.

 

 

What it comes down to is a matter of ultimate authority. If you rejected Christianity based on the authority of your reasoning, then IT and not God was always your ultimate authority.

 

 

please don't throw out that same tired old "you were never a christian" bit....I've heard it 5 million times before. If you want to have a civil conversation the first step is to not resort to ad-hominems.

 

again, my choice to walk away was very painful and difficult for me...it cost me quite a bit, friends, job.... For a very long time I considered God and the bible my ultimate authorities, but doing this didn't do anything to make my life or the lives of those around me better, so I decided to make up my own mind about what is right and wrong....is it perfect, of course not, but then deciding based on the bible wasn't perfect either....its the fact that you think it IS perfect that both worries and saddens me.

 

My point, and the entire point of the website, is to show that reasoning is impossible without God. Sure there are perceived difficulties in the Bible, but without it being the inspired, infallible Word of God, we lose all justification for human reason itself.

 

if reason is a gift from your god, then why does my reason tell me YOUR god does not exist...

 

seriously though....this statement is so silly I don't even know where to begin....there are plenty justifications for reason outside the bible....even *gasp* OTHER RELIGIONS..... you might not know this, but there are actually other people out there who claim to know things about god WITHOUT READING THE BIBLE. I know it sounds crazy but its true.

 

According to the Christian worldview, our very ability to reason is a gift from God, surely He would expect us to use it prayerfully in trying to understand His word. The cultural, ceremonial, and moral law explanation makes sense to me, if i am wrong then I will have to answer for my error. Thankfully when I meet my maker I will be covered by the righteousness of Christ.

 

and this is supposed to me what to me exactly? I could claim that according to my world view pink flamingos will come a destroy the world someday....but that doesn't mean it will happen.

 

All you say is the "explanation makes sense to me" right after you got through claiming that our ability to reason is based on the bible, you go and think for yourself instead..... shame on you...you're no better than me. Using your OWN brain to think for yourself....how COULD you?

 

I know, I'm being snarky...sorry if it offends you...but you don't seem to realize how inconsistent your view really is..... I'm willing to admit my view may not be entirely consistent... but the world view I now embrace has room for inconsistencies. Yours does not...or at least shouldn't.

 

Seriously, can you offer ANY biblical support for your postion? If not just admit it and we can move on...if you have it then present it, and stop trying to obsfucate things. As far as I know the earliest mention of this 3 law type was in Suma Theologica by Aquinas in the 13th century, which is around 1150 years after the last book of the NT was written Do you have ANYTHING earlier than that?

[Kuroikaze]

Um, what proof do you have that it does? What proof do you have that one species became another?

What proof do you have of ANY mutation that INCREASED genetic information? Surely you believe that a human has more genetic infromation than pre-biotic slime?

 

 

Agreed, but the increase in information is a BY product of evolution, in many casses something more simple may survive better. I'm, admitidly, not a scientist, I'm more of a philospher, by nature. there are people here that are more qualified to fully answer this question than I am.

 

Admitting that you have no proof for your theory hardly backs up your theory.

 

For the record, I am not here to argue evolution (I only responded to a post regarding it). It is my contention that outside of God one cannot make sense out of the human reasoning you use even to posit evolution. If you would like to posit a source for the universal, abstract, invariant laws outside of God, feel free, and I will engage you.

 

Cheers

 

Its not really MY theory, I didn't admit to having no proof exactly, I was just pointing out that your fail to offer any proof against....and I'm more likely to trust a biologist who has studied genetics for 20 years than you.... Is that unreasonable?

 

 

Why exactly does there have to be a source for abstract laws? Isn't the whole point that they are abstract? how are you sure they are even universal? The only thing I can think of that could be considered "universal" and "invariant" might be physics, and even then once you get the the level of stuff like chaos theory, we find out that even things that seem invariant are in fact built out of chaos and disorder at the most basic levels.

 

Mathematics? well, math is a system that was built of of observations of physics.

 

Logic? was primarily based off of mathematical principals

 

If you are talking about moral laws there are plenty of reasonable explanations for how moral systems developed naturally. A good into book on anthropology or sociology could explain this.

 

as far as I can see your argument is just so much smoke and mirrors....its sophistry pure and simple. I know because I used your arguments to evangelize to people myself once upon a time.